Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV16892, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV16892 Hearing Date: February 27, 2024 Dept: 14
Rivera v. City of Los Angeles
Case Background
Plaintiff alleges that she was
fired as a police cadet because she was disabled and pregnant.
On July 26,
2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Pregnancy
Discrimination, (2) Harassment, (3) Sex Discrimination, (4) Failure to Prevent,
(5) FEHA Retaliation, (6) Disability Discrimination, (7) Failure to Engage, and
(8) Failure to Accommodate against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Aaron
McCraney (“McCraney”), Susanna Kazarian (“Kazarian”), Catherina Emestica,
erroneously sued as “Katherine Emestica” (“Emestica”), Norma Zamora (“Zamora”),
and DOES 1-50.
On August
19, 2022, Defendants City, McCraney, Kazarian, Emestica, and Zamora filed their
joint Answer.
Jury trial
is currently set for April 15, 2024.
Instant Motion
Plaintiff
now moves this court for an order that Defendant City produce:
“1.
Each and every report, memorandum, statement and item of correspondence (including
reports of any internal investigation, administrative, or criminal investigation),
prepared by, or in the possession of, any employee of Defendant and/or Los
Angeles Police Department concerning Plaintiff.
2.
Each and every report, memorandum, statement and item of correspondence
(including reports of any internal investigation, administrative, or criminal
investigation), prepared by, or in the possession of, any employee of Defendant
and/or Los Angeles Police Department reflecting any disciplinary action imposed
against Captain Aaron McCraney (“McCraney”), or any other employee of
Defendant, arising out of Plaintiff’s request for accommodation and/or
termination.
3.
Each and every report, memorandum, statement and item of correspondence
(including reports of any internal investigation, administrative, or criminal
investigation), prepared by, or in the possession of, any employee of Defendant
and/or Los Angeles Police Department reflecting any disciplinary action imposed
against Officer Katherine Emestica (“Emestica”), or any other employee of
Defendant, arising out of Plaintiff’s request for accommodation and/or
termination.
4.
Each and every report, memorandum, statement and item of correspondence
(including reports of any internal investigation, administrative, or criminal
investigation), prepared by, or in the possession of, any employee of Defendant
and/or Los Angeles Police Department reflecting any disciplinary action imposed
against Detective Norma Zamora (“Zamora”), or any other employee of Defendant,
arising out of Plaintiff’s request for accommodation and/or termination.
5.
Each and every report, memorandum, statement and item of correspondence
(including reports of any internal investigation, administrative, or criminal
investigation), prepared by, or in the possession of, any employee of Defendant
and/or Los Angeles Police Department reflecting any disciplinary action imposed
against Officer Suzanna Kazarian (“Kazarian”), or any other employee of
Defendant, arising out of Plaintiff’s request for accommodation and/or
termination.
6.
Each and every report, memorandum, statement and item of correspondence
(including reports of any internal investigation, administrative, or criminal
investigation), prepared by, or in the possession of, any employee of Defendant
and/or Los Angeles Police Department reflecting any disciplinary action imposed
against Police Officer and Injured on Duty (“IOD”) Coordinator, Claire Smith
(“Smith”), or any other employee of Defendant, arising out of Plaintiff’s
request for accommodation and/or termination.
7.
Each and every report, memorandum, statement and item of correspondence
(including reports of any internal investigation, administrative, or criminal
investigation), prepared by, or in the possession of, any employee of Defendant
and/or Los Angeles Police Department reflecting any disciplinary action imposed
against Sargent Lawrence Martinez (“Martinez”), or any other employee of
Defendant, arising out of Plaintiff’s request for accommodation and/or
termination.
[Item
Nos. 8-13 previously denied]
14.
Any and all documents concerning Defendant’s investigation into Plaintiff’s
termination.
[Item
No. 15 previously denied]
16.
Any and all Internal Affairs reports or documents concerning Plaintiff’s
termination.
17.
Any and all documents concerning Defendant’s investigation into Plaintiff’s
complaints regarding her termination.
18.
Any and all Internal Affairs reports or documents concerning Plaintiff’s
contention that her termination was retaliatory.
[Item
No. 19 previously denied]
20.
Any and all documents concerning why Plaintiff was asked to resign on or about
May 5, 2021.
[Item
Nos. 21-31 previously denied]
32.
Any statements obtained by any witnesses as part of Defendant and/or Los
Angeles Police Department investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints regarding her
termination.
33.
Any and all Internal Affairs investigation reports and documents concerning
Plaintiff.
Decision
The motion is DENIED as to Item Nos. 2-7.
The
motion is GRANTED as to the remainder, as limited by the stipulation filed on
February 22, 2024.
The
court sets a hearing for the in camera review on March 14, 2024.
Discussion
This motion first came on for hearing on January 23,
2024. The court found that the motion was properly served, and that discovery
deadlines are pegged to the current trial date of April 15, 2024. ordered
counsel to meet and confer to discuss what materials Plaintiff seeks that Defense
would withhold, and also to file a stipulation describing those materials by
noon on January 26, 2024.
Counsel filed that stipulation a day early, on January
25, 2024. That stipulation removed Category Nos. 8-13, 15, 19, and 21-31 from
the motion, but did not narrow the remaining categories. The court directed
counsel to meet and confer with the County’s Pitchess department and
reach a more particularized description of the documents that are subject to Pitchess
and being withheld on that basis. That description was due in the form of a
stipulation by noon on February 20, 2023.
On February 20, 2023, the parties filed a joint request
for additional time, indicating that the Pitchess department had been
unable to meet with counsel until that day, and needed extra time to prepare a
description of their records. Counsel requested that the deadline for the
stipulation be extended to February 22, 2024. Additionally, counsel stipulated
that “Complaint File No. 21-001438,” which appears to correspond to an Internal
Affairs complaint investigation, should be included in the documents subject to
this motion.
As promised, on February 22, 2023, the parties filed a
joint stipulation indicating that the Pitchess department had no
documents that would respond to Item Nos. 2-7, and thus no documents responsive
to those requests are being withheld on Pitchess grounds. On the
remaining items, the only responsive documents the Pitchess department
had were the previously mentioned Complaint File No. 21-001438 and an
additional Complaint File No. 21-000657. Both files are identified as
investigations that concern Plaintiff’s termination.
Since those two files are the only responsive documents
covered by Pitchess, and the parties have agreed that they concern
Plaintiff’s termination, there is good cause for discovery of those files. See Warrick
v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016. The court will
proceed to the second step of the Pitchess procedure and conduct an in
camera review of those two files.
The court thanks counsel for working together to
expeditiously identify the materials at issue. The court hopes counsel will
extend its thanks to the members of the Pitchess department as well.
Conclusion
Because the Pitchess department has no documents
that would respond to Item Nos. 2-7, and no documents responsive to those
requests are being withheld on Pitchess grounds, the motion is DENIED as
to those items. There is nothing to conduct a Pitchess process about.
For the remaining items, the only documents withheld on Pitchess
grounds are the contents of Complaint File No. 21-001438 and Complaint File No.
21-000657. The parties agree that those files pertain to Plaintiff’s
termination, which is the event at issue in this case. Therefore, there is good
cause for discovery of the contents of those files. The motion is therefore
GRANTED as to the remaining items to the extent that the court will
conduct an in camera review of those two files.
To that end, the court sets a hearing for the in
camera review on March 14, 2024.